About this Show

[untitled]

NETWORK

DURATION
00:30:00

RATING

SCANNED IN
San Francisco, CA, USA

SOURCE
Comcast Cable

TUNER
Channel 89 (615 MHz)

VIDEO CODEC
mpeg2video

AUDIO CODEC
ac3

PIXEL WIDTH
544

PIXEL HEIGHT
480

TOPIC FREQUENCY

The City 2, California 2, Let Me 1, Sean 1, Daly City 1, Like Merced 1, Hypobole 1, Us 1, City 1, San Franciscoans 1, San Francisco 1,
Borrow a DVD
of this show
  SFGTV2    [untitled]  

    November 1, 2012
    11:00 - 11:30am PDT  

11:00am
their environmental values. in real short explanation, it requires the city to develop a plan for the future to guarantee our water security and begin to undo the damage that our current water system does to the environment. the plan would then be brought back to the voters in 2016 for their aprafl or disapproval so it's placing the city on a trajectory we're not currently on. we don't recycle any water, we've abandoned most ground water since hetch hetchy became available and we've done real damage to the tuolome river and we begin it's time to get in line with the city's values. it's a plan the voters ultimately get to approve. >> i disagree. i think proposition f is about one thing and one thing only, about forcing the city to spend $8
11:01am
million dollars to conduct a plan that would require us to drain hetch hetchy reservoir at a cost of anywhere between 3 and 10 billion dollars that gets translated to our rate payers at anywhere between $2,000 and $2700 per year per rate payer. this is a proposal largely hoisted upon san franciscoans by outsiders. not one san francisco organization supports this measure. every group from san francisco tomorrow to the republican party across the political spectrum opposes us wasting this money, particularly because it is a plan that has been conducted at least 7 times over the last many decades and each time we've been told it is a colossal failure and not one we should pursue. >> mike, this gives you an opportunity to tell us why this time would be different. >> what sean is describing is not what's in the initiative. it's just a planning process.
11:02am
yes, our goal is to bring the hetch hetchy valley and yosemite back to life. san francisco is the only city allowed to park its water in a national park. a hundred years we made that decision and bee think every hundred years san francisco should revisit that decision. there's no down side to that. but you can't do that without also reforming our 19th century water system. it was designed in the 19th century and as a result it's very damaging to the environment. what we do is look at how do we consolidate from 9 reservoirs into 8 and begin to build our local water resources to offset a small percentage of water loss that might happen. let's figure that out. let's not have a conversation based on hypobole, in terms of sean saying there are 7 reports saying it's not
11:03am
feasible, that's not true. what's unfortunate about all those is the city of san francisco has boycotted participating in those studies. san francisco says, wait a minute we have a unique responsibility here. we're the only city that stores our water in a national park so let's see how we can do better because we don't do a very good job. orange county recycles 30 million gallons of water a day, we recycle zero. we have a great opportunity to guarantee our water future and undo the damage to yosemite national park. >> sean, one point i know is the hydroelectric power generated by that dam, if i remember it's 41 million dollars? do i have my numbers right? >> there are a number of
11:04am
reasons why hetch hetchy is such a benefit to the city, not the least of which is that it produces carbon free public power to the city of san francisco. one of my favorite lines mike just used is this measure is about consolidating from 8 reservoirs to 7. another way to say that is to say this is about draining one of them, the hetch hetchy valley. have other studies said this is feasible? sure, just like tearing down city hall or knocking down the golden gate bridge, that's possible but not feasible. we're not going to spend 3 billion dollars to tear down the hetch hetchy dam. let's not forget, we are also stewards for two dozen cities in the peninsula. over 2 million californians benefit from the foresight of our forefathers almost 100 years ago in building hetch hetchy.
11:05am
while the rest of the state is tying themselves up in knots trying to figure out where to get their water. not only did we have the type of water storage hetch hetchy provides, not only today but in the future, we are in a solid place. and to spend this kind of money, and let's just talk about the $8 million dollars, i think that's one thing we can agree on. this calls for us to spend $8 million dollars. in my own district, out at like merced, we're taking that amount of money and building a water recycling plant. mike wants us to take that money and waste it on a report. why would we want to spend money to redo what's already been done? >> i upd. that does bring up an interesting point as well with the infrastructure that was voted on and is almost complete. can you address that
11:06am
investment that's already been made. >> absolutely. >> and also with the state of california's report suggesting that 8 million wouldn't be enough to get a plan done. so if you could just address those two points that have come up. >> sure, let me start -- again, go to the report it says again 7 million is what's needed for san francisco to engage in the planning process. the larger amount is if we bring in the park service and the state of california, which at this point we don't need to do, we just need the san francisco public utilities commission to get off their butts and start to think about the future more effectively. this really boils down it a 21st century versus the 20th century view of water. sean says our future is secure. it isn't. anyone who thinks our future water supply is going to be coming from the tuolome
11:07am
river is crazy. the one thing we know about climate change is we have to change our water sources. again, we don't recycle any water. we're going to start importing water from daly city next week. we have some plans on the books to do 4 million gals by 2035. that's a fraction. the san francisco business times recbltly said san francisco's plans for the future are baby steps and it's disgraceful. prop f is about getting us away from that vision and getting us to plan for the future. >> sean, as a wrap up, the dollars that we're talking about here, whether it's a values debate, that's one thing, that's some of the language that i respect. but when i look at the dollars, i'm not sure, could you dra*e address how that the city and the controller's report? it
11:08am
seems to be a fairly vast effect. >> there's no question, this is a significant impact on the city but let's translate that for our viewers. it's an impact on the rate payers. this is not born by the city's budget, it's borne by everybody's monthly water bill. we know everybody's water bill is going to climb because we have to rebuild our sewer system. on top of that do we want to add many hundreds or perhaps thousands of dollars to conduct a rate study that has been done several times that is going to completely drain the stoerplg capacity we have and absolutely put the city further back tomorrow than where we are today? >> we're talking about lettinging the rate payers decide for themselves. it gives the rate payers the information they need in 2016 if it gets back on the ballot.
11:09am
the controller's report is actually quite inaccurate. it projects if prop f passes, a plan is implemented, adopted by the voters and hetch hetchy valley is restored that it will cost $10 billion dollars. that's not what people are voting on here. they are voting on prop f which is simply an $8 million dollar planning process. it's not just an $8 million planning process, it's voting for san francisco's future and i urge people to go to restoreyosemite.org and read about it. >> this is a measure hoisted on san francisco by outsiders. every san francisco political group across the political spectrum opposes this measure. this will cost us billions of dollars and it's an unnecessary complete waste of our rate payer dollars. we've done the
11:10am
studies, we know it's a waste, let's move forward with what we're already doing which are significant recycled water projects across the city. >> thank you, gentlemen. we hope this discussion was informative. for more discussion on this and other ballot measures in this year's election, please visit the san francisco league of women voters web site at sfvotes.org. remember, early voting is available at city hall from 8:00 am to 5:00 pm if you don'
11:11am
11:12am
11:13am
11:14am
11:15am
11:16am
11:17am
11:18am
11:19am
11:20am
11:21am
11:22am
11:23am
11:24am
11:25am
11:26am
11:27am
11:28am
11:29am

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)